What if...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The reason Japan attacked the US was the stopping of the oil exports to Japan which the DEI also followed. The reason for the ban on oil exports was the occupation of French Indochina but since France would be an ally of Japan then that would not be a problem for the US. So there would be no ban on oil exports to Japan and hence no reason for the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor nor anywhere else.

The US reaction to Japanese occupation of French Indochina was not to protect French colonial possessions. It was an expansion of the war against China, and that required the reaction made.

As far is it being known about Babyn Yar, it was known to those people who had an interest in such events as well as certain people in power. As far as every single person in the entire world knowing about such an event, you are correct in that not every single person would have known about it. But the people in power and/or interested in such power in the US knew about such things but at that time, there was only so much that could be done about them. Heck, the Communists and Socialists in the USA were protesting assisting the Allies until after the 22nd of June, 1941 . . .

Still, just rumors. Certainty didn't arrive till tanks rolled into the death camps.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sorry. Forgot for a moment that you reject all fiction even for entertainment purposes.

warspite1

What a child. As I have made perfectly clear - even to you - there are counterfactuals that attempt to sensibly look at what could have happened based on the historical, and there are counterfactuals that don’t trouble themselves in the effort department. You can’t accept another view point and now turn to sarcasm. Well done.

Ah resorting to name calling. You don't like what if historical scenarios fine. Why are you even commenting here if it isn't your cup of tea? To pound your chest and shout how correct you are and how wrong everyone else is because they like to play with the facts? Others do like fictional history no matter how out of whack it is. So go find a thread where people of your mindset play. I hope you will be happy there. I do enjoy alternate history. That's exactly what this thread is about. If you can't handle that and it seems to upset you greatly then simply stop paying attention to this thread. Easy as that. No one is forcing it on you except you.

It's funny that you totally ignore that I did indeed agree that this was all way out there and had zero chance of even happening. But whether or not it could actually come to fruition was never the point. The point was having fun with alternate history even if it could never happen. Fictional history. You have a problem with it, fine. I accept that. I don't have a problem with it and neither do others. You do seem to have a problem with that and can't accept that.

Have a nice day. [;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The reason Japan attacked the US was the stopping of the oil exports to Japan which the DEI also followed. The reason for the ban on oil exports was the occupation of French Indochina but since France would be an ally of Japan then that would not be a problem for the US. So there would be no ban on oil exports to Japan and hence no reason for the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor nor anywhere else.

The US reaction to Japanese occupation of French Indochina was not to protect French colonial possessions. It was an expansion of the war against China, and that required the reaction made.

As far is it being known about Babyn Yar, it was known to those people who had an interest in such events as well as certain people in power. As far as every single person in the entire world knowing about such an event, you are correct in that not every single person would have known about it. But the people in power and/or interested in such power in the US knew about such things but at that time, there was only so much that could be done about them. Heck, the Communists and Socialists in the USA were protesting assisting the Allies until after the 22nd of June, 1941 . . .

Still, just rumors. Certainty didn't arrive till tanks rolled into the death camps.

The Japanese move into Indochina would have been moving forces into an ally and hence not a problem for the USA. Or don't you comprehend that? The war in China was not the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was due to the oil embargo put into place by the Japanese occupying Indochina but if they were allies, not a problem for the US. As far as the war in China was concerned, what would have been the likelihood of that even occuring of the UK and Japan were allied?

Babyn Yar was known about and there were survivors. Just ask Dina Pronicheva about what it was like . . .

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sorry. Forgot for a moment that you reject all fiction even for entertainment purposes.

warspite1

What a child. As I have made perfectly clear - even to you - there are counterfactuals that attempt to sensibly look at what could have happened based on the historical, and there are counterfactuals that don’t trouble themselves in the effort department. You can’t accept another view point and now turn to sarcasm. Well done.

Ah resorting to name calling. You don't like what if historical scenarios fine. Why are you even commenting here if it isn't your cup of tea? To pound your chest and shout how correct you are and how wrong everyone else is because they like to play with the facts? Others do like fictional history no matter how out of whack it is. So go find a thread where people of your mindset play. I hope you will be happy there. I do enjoy alternate history. That's exactly what this thread is about. If you can't handle that and it seems to upset you greatly then simply stop paying attention to this thread. Easy as that. No one is forcing it on you except you.

Have a nice day. [;)]

warspite1

And on the back of sarcasm you evidence how you've not even been able to keep up with the discussion. As is obvious, I love analysing and discussing counterfactuals. That you suggest otherwise says much. Just because I disagree with you you are like a dog with a bone. According to you I have to agree that the You Tube post was great - just because you like it - regardless of the childlike assumptions it makes. As I've said you like it and that is fine - but you can't honestly debate its assumptions like a grown up (I suspect because even you know its nonsense). I don't like it and am prepared to debate. Listen, if you can't take grown up debate then stay away.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Japanese move into Indochina would have been moving forces into an ally and hence not a problem for the USA. Or don't you comprehend that? The war in China was not the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was due to the oil embargo put into place by the Japanese occupying Indochina but if they were allies, not a problem for the US. As far as the war in China was concerned, what would have been the likelihood of that even occuring of the UK and Japan were allied?

The situation in China would not have been that simple, since China was an Ally too. Clearly, this would have been an expansion against China. The US reaction would have been the same as historically.

Babyn Yar was known about and there were survivors. Just ask Dina Pronicheva about what it was like . .

Again, a few people knowing something constitutes a rumor to the larger world.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

warspite1

But if they are not pro-Fascist then why do the US ally with the Fascists? You said it doesn't matter what Churchill does, or in other words you say that regardless of how Britain react to the Japanese declaring war, the USA will ally with Hitler and Mussolini....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

I'm just saying that what may have been a fantasy on the site, could be made plausible with a more right-wing US Administration. The US, attacked by an Allied power, could see the Soviet-Japan combination as the greater evil than Nazi Germany. Soviet and Japanese attrocities are old news. Nazi attrocities are just rumors. And Japan attacking the neutral US blunts the argument that the Axis are the aggressors. Policy decisions of 1940 have been made obsolete by the events of 1941. The World Hedgemony of the Communist and Japanese combo may seem more threatening than the Axis (which is, so far, limited to Europe and the Med).

warspite1

But these 'Allies are a loose bunch without common purpose. The only common purpose that Stalin and Churchill have is defeating Hitler. Neither are interested in a Japan that attacks the very country that is keeping them afloat. Why would these two decide that they can make an enemy of the US in early 1942 and still defeat the Germans?

Take Stalin alone. The USSR are getting nothing from Japan. Why would they stay 'Allies' with Japan if it is going to cost them US support? Not only US support but actually mean the US will aid the Germans?

Actions in 1940 affect things in 1941 because the Amercians have installed a pro-British president. That has been done before we get to 1941.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

As in the video, there is no initial war between USA & UK. But, as in the video, war friction would probably lead to it. War with Japan alone is likely to, inadvertently, lead to incidents with their allies (USSR & Britain). So...war with Japan will probably lead to war with Russia and/or Britain - necessitating aid to the Axis. Once the US is sending aid to the Axis over the Atlantic, clashes with Britain are very likely.

warspite1

There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity. I ask again, how does an effectively bankrupt Britain, that needs the US for food, raw materials and weapons intend to fight, not just the Axis, but the US too. Where does that make sense on any level?

Britain's entire Far East policy centred on keeping America on side. They ended a treaty with Japan in the early twenties so as not to upset the US. You are talking about not only turning this cornerstone of policy on its head, but doing so just at the time the US are keeping Britain afloat.

[Lobster]

Here's an even more likely what if that could have put Germany against Japan. Germany had far more to lose in raw materials by siding with Japan than siding with China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Germ ... incursions.

So now China becomes a German trading partner and receives German military aid and perhaps becomes an ally. Evidently Hitler thought Japan would be better suited in that role. Without the raw materials but with a more able military. Yet he failed to include them when planning Barbarossa. What's the point of their stronger military if you refuse to use it to your advantage? That's plain stupid and makes zero sense. And China is also supported by the U.S. At the same time Japan and Germany are now at odds. And Japan and the U.S. are also at odds.

Now Japan attacks China, now Germany's second or third largest trading partner where tens millions of marks are invested and Germany's friend if not ally. The U.S. also has close ties with China. The U.S. and Germany find themselves on the same side in a war in China. Japan is Germany's enemy. Japan is the enemy of the U.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Here's an even more likely what if that could have put Germany against Japan. Germany had far more to lose in raw materials by siding with Japan than siding with China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Germ ... incursions.

How could Germany even received any raw materials from China if the Allies did not want them to receive any? Especially if Japan was allied with the United Kingdom?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Japanese move into Indochina would have been moving forces into an ally and hence not a problem for the USA. Or don't you comprehend that? The war in China was not the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was due to the oil embargo put into place by the Japanese occupying Indochina but if they were allies, not a problem for the US. As far as the war in China was concerned, what would have been the likelihood of that even occuring of the UK and Japan were allied?

The situation in China would not have been that simple, since China was an Ally too. Clearly, this would have been an expansion against China. The US reaction would have been the same as historically.

Babyn Yar was known about and there were survivors. Just ask Dina Pronicheva about what it was like . .

Again, a few people knowing something constitutes a rumor to the larger world.

Read what you are stating. China and Japan are allied with each other yet are at war with each other. There is a clock with a bird that comes out every half an hour to describe such a thing!

The larger world had its own problems and there was little that the average person could do about the atrocities but the people in charge could have done something. The USA could have complained to Nazi Germany and did more chest thumping which may have been able to delay or even completely stop such things. The USA could also have opened its doors to such refugees and could have cause some trouble for Germany if Germany would have inhibited such movements to the USA.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
How could Germany even received any raw materials from China if the Allies did not want them to receive any? Especially if Japan was allied with the United Kingdom?

Who are the Allies? Didn't even exist until sometime after December 7, 1941.

Here's an even more likely what if that could have put Germany against Japan. Germany had far more to lose in raw materials by siding with Japan than siding with China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Germ ... incursions.

So now China becomes a German trading partner and receives German military aid and perhaps becomes an ally. Evidently Hitler thought Japan would be better suited in that role. Without the raw materials but with a more able military. Yet he failed to include them when planning Barbarossa. What's the point of their stronger military if you refuse to use it to your advantage? That's plain stupid and makes zero sense. Especially when the Japanese Army was willing to take on the Soviets in Asia. And China is also supported by the U.S. At the same time Japan and Germany are now at odds. And Japan and the U.S. are also at odds.

Now Japan attacks China, now Germany's second or third largest trading partner where tens millions of marks are invested and Germany's friend if not ally. The U.S. also has close ties with China. The U.S. and Germany find themselves on the same side in a war in China. Japan is Germany's enemy. Japan is the enemy of the U.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And something else. Rooselvelt had a bitter dislike for dictators. Yet he sided and planned and worked closely with one as bad if not worse than Hitler who had openly planned world domination through Communism. Not exactly a state secret. Yet there Roosevelt is hobnobbing with the devil because they had a common enemy.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
How could Germany even received any raw materials from China if the Allies did not want them to receive any? Especially if Japan was allied with the United Kingdom?

Who are the Allies? Didn't even exist until sometime after December 7, 1941.

Here's an even more likely what if that could have put Germany against Japan. Germany had far more to lose in raw materials by siding with Japan than siding with China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Germ ... incursions.

So now China becomes a German trading partner and receives German military aid and perhaps becomes an ally. Evidently Hitler thought Japan would be better suited in that role. Without the raw materials but with a more able military. Yet he failed to include them when planning Barbarossa. What's the point of their stronger military if you refuse to use it to your advantage? That's plain stupid and makes zero sense. Especially when the Japanese Army was willing to take on the Soviets in Asia. And China is also supported by the U.S. At the same time Japan and Germany are now at odds. And Japan and the U.S. are also at odds.

Now Japan attacks China, now Germany's second or third largest trading partner where tens millions of marks are invested and Germany's friend if not ally. The U.S. also has close ties with China. The U.S. and Germany find themselves on the same side in a war in China. Japan is Germany's enemy. Japan is the enemy of the U.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And something else. Rooselvelt had a bitter dislike for dictators. Yet he sided and planned and worked closely with one as bad if not worse than Hitler who had openly planned world domination through Communism. Not exactly a state secret. Yet there Roosevelt is hobnobbing with the devil because they had a common enemy.

I seriously suggest that you actually open some history books, read them, and at least try to comprehend what is written in them.

Germany did have a major influence in China until 1937 . . .

The Allies did exist prior to the 7th of December of 1941. The World War II started before the USA was attacked by Japan!

Churchill hated Communism, the only thing that he hated more was Nazism . . .

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Read what you are stating. China and Japan are allied with each other yet are at war with each other.

warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

I think China was too much on the difficult pile for the You Tuber because he had China surrender as soon as they lost one battle to the Soviets. Convenient if you don't want to think too much about the whole Soviet/Japan/China/Britain/USA thing, but highly unlikely to have happened for the reasons given above. Even if it did and the Soviets managed to raise a force big enough, how far would they get into China? What would it achieve? And why would Chiang give up the ghost based on one battle?

As said, everytime you peel away a layer of this counterfactual onion, the who thing just gets more and more absurd.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As in the video, there is no initial war between USA & UK. But, as in the video, war friction would probably lead to it. War with Japan alone is likely to, inadvertently, lead to incidents with their allies (USSR & Britain). So...war with Japan will probably lead to war with Russia and/or Britain - necessitating aid to the Axis. Once the US is sending aid to the Axis over the Atlantic, clashes with Britain are very likely.

warspite1

There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity. I ask again, how does an effectively bankrupt Britain, that needs the US for food, raw materials and weapons intend to fight, not just the Axis, but the US too. Where does that make sense on any level?

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

I wonder how many minutes would Churchill remain Prime Minister after proposing such a course of action...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As in the video, there is no initial war between USA & UK. But, as in the video, war friction would probably lead to it. War with Japan alone is likely to, inadvertently, lead to incidents with their allies (USSR & Britain). So...war with Japan will probably lead to war with Russia and/or Britain - necessitating aid to the Axis. Once the US is sending aid to the Axis over the Atlantic, clashes with Britain are very likely.

warspite1

There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity. I ask again, how does an effectively bankrupt Britain, that needs the US for food, raw materials and weapons intend to fight, not just the Axis, but the US too. Where does that make sense on any level?

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

I ask you again, and will continue to ask:

- How does the effectively bankrupt British Empire function without US aid?
- Why does Stalin even consider choosing Japan over the US given what it means in the war against Germany?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

I wonder how many minutes would Churchill remain Prime Minister after proposing such a course of action...

warspite1

Lol. Well quite, not to mention that he would have had to have had a frontal lobotomy to make that decision. Why? Well read just about everything Churchill wrote, said or did; getting the US into the war was his Holy Grail, his raison d'etre, his everything. A counterfactual that suggests Britain would declare war on the US is simply pointless.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

I wonder how many minutes would Churchill remain Prime Minister after proposing such a course of action...

warspite1

Moreover, can you imagine the action Canada would take? In the You Tube video Canada don't stand up to Churchill [8|] but simply state they are neutral as against the US. So.....

... Canada are sending supplies, ships and men to Britain so that they can fight US forces, but don't expect the US to be a tad miffed by this.

I think its reasonable for the Canadians to tell WSC to do one if Churchill even proposed attacking the US. I think its more likely the Canadians would announce an immediate break with the Empire and join the US.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?